Yes, that is what anarchists all say.

Periodic amnesty is getting what the left wants over and over and is no different than getting what they want continuously by way of open borders.

We disagree. Since all civil disobedience proclaims the law and the government to be wrong, your rationale would leave none subject to consequences. That is not civil disobedience. It is anarchy.

Quite apart from what I think about what Snowden did, it should be remembered that the honor of civil disobedience requires that the offender acknowledge and submit to the legal consequences of his actions. Otherwise, it is just breaking the law.

The lefts entire viewpoint on diversity is misplaced. Diversity is not a valuable goal in and of itself. It is a means to a better outcome. More correctly, it is a means to avoid a less than optimal outcome. When they put together your heart surgery team, you do not want them to exclude the best and most experienced anesthesiologist available because that anesthesiologist is black. But in precisely the same way, you do not want them to exclude the best and most experienced anesthesiologist because neither that anesthesiologist nor any of the other team members are black so the team is not diverse. Diversity is not the goal. The best and most experienced available heart surgery team is the goal. Diversity is nothing more nor less than ensuring that goal is not realized because of some other unrelated consideration. As clear as that is in the abstract, it is always compromised when in practice diversity is judged by the end result rather than by the process.

Let me see if I can anticipate the Liberal rationale for this outrage. As is the case with welfare for illegal immigrants, they will pay taxes on that money so it is a win-win.

There is no substantive nor consequential difference between repeated cyclical amnesty and open borders. Amnesty is not a case of one step down a slippery slope. It is a case of getting what they want by pretending otherwise.

Right, then they could just deem it afterbirth.

The pro-abortion movement is really just about insuring a women does not have to have and care for a baby if, at any point, she decides she does not want to do so. It is a qualitative judgement that the impact on the mothers life takes precedent over that of the baby. All the rest is just collective rationalization. I have less disrespect for those women who abort because they admit they don't want to be bothered and/or would not be a good mother.

"to give them the impression that you are being as honest,..., "? Not 'to demonstrate that you are being honest'? Not 'being honest because honesty is the best policy'. Just 'fool them into believing you are being honest'?